The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act in determining compensation for fatal accidents involving children, including the computation of notional income and loss of dependency.

JUDGMENT :

J.R. Midha, J.

1. The appellants have challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby the compensation of Rs. 3,62,500/- has been awarded to the appellants.

2. The accident dated 10th May, 2000 resulted in the death of Master Farman aged 7 years. The parents of the deceased filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The deceased was a student of IInd standard in P.D. Public School. The learned Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 22,500/- and applied the multiplier of 15 to compute the loss of dependency to be Rs. 3,37,500/-. Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded towards medical expenses and Rs. 5,000/- each has been awarded towards transportation of the dead body, funeral expenses and loss of estate. The total compensation is awarded Rs. 3,62,500/-.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has not made 1/3rd deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased while computing the compensation. The second ground submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for notional income of Rs. 15,000/- whereas the learned Tribunal has taken the notional income to be Rs. 22,500/- in the absence of any evidence.

4. In the case of Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- in respect of death of a 13- years old boy by applying the multiplier of 15 and taking the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier of 15 would have to be applied. As per the Second Schedule, he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- must be taken as the income. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 2,25,000/-

5. The case of Sobhagya Devi and Ors. v. Sukhvir Singh and Ors. II (2006) ACC 1997 relates to the death of a 12-year old boy. Following the decision of the Apex Court in Manju Devi's case (supra), the Rajasthan High Court awarded Rs. 2,25,000/- by applying the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. The case of Syam Narayan v. Kitty Tours & Travels 2006 ACJ 320 relates to the death of a child aged 5 years. This Court relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Manju Devi's case (supra) awarded compensation to the parents by applying the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- and multiplier of 15 as per the Second Schedule and further awarded Rs. 50,000/- for loss of company of the child as also pain and suffering by them. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

3. By and under the award dated 5.12.2003, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been awarded to the appellants. While awarding sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to appellants, learned M.A.C.T. has held that the income of the deceased child was incapable of assessment or estimation. Recognising that every parent has a reasonable expectation of financial and moral support from his child, in the absence of any evidence led, learned M.A.C.T. opined that the interest of justice requires that appellants are compensated with the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

4. Had the Tribunal peeped into the Second Schedule, as per Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it would have dawned on the Tribunal that vide serial No. 6, notional income for compensation in case of fatal accidents has been stipulated at Rs. 15,000/- per annum.

5. In the decision reported as Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan 2005 ACJ 99 (SC), dealing with the accidental death of 13 years old boy, while awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Apex Court took into account the notional income stipulated in the Second Schedule being Rs. 15,000/- per annum.

6. In the instant case, baby Chanda was aged 5 years. Age of the appellants as on date of accident was 28 years and 26 years respectively as recorded in the impugned award. Applying a m